Taking a step back I dont see how life time is becomes an issue just by changing an interface from a reference type to a value type .
For interfaces to objects an interface cant outlive an object when the interface holds a "reference" to it . They will always be collected ( whether stack frame , region of GC) together or interface then object. So are are really talking about interfaces on non boxed value types where the internal reference becomes a pointer to the stack . Which is a concept we talked about but which i cant get my head around yet. Im not sure the value of having interfaces on non reference types , thats a perfect candidate for type classes , it seems marginal . Even logicaly an interface as a contract to a non identitifiable object ( eg ref) seems strange.. If you want to do it , explicitly box it. Ben On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote: > I really want to understand what Sandro is saying, but let's also make > sure we get feedback on the original question: > > Will this idea that instances of interfaces have a lifetime restriction > work? What do people think? > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
